We are presently considering standardization of the process module physical interfaces that are for use in cluster tool type 450mm equipment. The standardization is intended to assist connection as well as wafer transport between transport module and other modules interfacing with the transport module (hereinafter represented by “process or load-lock modules”), but shall not unduly restrict design of module content. Proposals for possible standardization items are: - Mechanical Interface: interface plane between transport module and process or load-lock modules, wafer transport plane in transport module and process or load-lock modules. - Transport Module End Effector Exclusion Volume: The volume within process or load-lock module which shall (in some case, should) be accessible to the transport module end effector, restriction on transport module end effector design.

This survey is distributed to IC device manufacturers, suppliers of semiconductor manufacturing equipment and load port suppliers for their inputs on this proposal of 450mm process module physical interface related standards to determine which specification should be standardized and to what extent. The IPPI TF encourages feedback on the need for these standards and the anticipated requirements in a production 450mm factory.The results of this survey will be reported at the 450mm IPPI TF meeting during 2012 Spring SEMI North America Standard Meetings.

Thank you very much in advance for your support.

February, 2012

1. About Youself

Please provide your name and your company name if possible. (eg. ZName: XXXX/ Company: YYYY)

This is a required question

Q1 Are you an employee of an IC Device Manufacturer (IDM) ?

If “Yes” go to Q2, if “No” go to Q3 after this question.

Yes

No

This is a required question

Q2 (For those who checked “Yes” for Q1) Is it likely for your company to start using 450mm semiconductor manufacturing equipment (SME) within 5-10 years from now?

Go to Q8 after this question.

Yes, within 5 years

Yes, within 10 years

No

I don't have freedom to answer this question.

This is a required question

Q3 (For those who checked “No” for Q1) Is it likely for your company to provide a 450mm cluster tool platform as a part of SME or as a commercial product?

If “Yes” go to Q6, if “No” go to Q4 after this question.

Yes, as a part of SME

Yes, as a product

No

This is a required question

Q4 (For those who checked “No” for both Q1 and Q3) Is it likely for your company to provide Equipment Front End Module (EFEM) as a part of SME/cluster tool platform or as a commercial product for use in 450 mm factory?

If “Yes” go to Q6, if “No” go to Q5 after this question.

Yes, as a part of SME / cluster tool platform

Yes, as a product

No

This is a required question

Q5 (For those who checked “No” for all of Q1, Q3 and Q4) Is it likely for your company to provide Automated Material Handling Systems (AMHS) or loadport as a commercial product for use in 450 mm factory?

Q8 Which consideration, in your opinion, should be more prioritized to decide the standard Transport Plane Height?

Two values are suggested for the Wafer Transport Plane Height. Proposal A suggests 1230mm so that transport plane is at the same height as the top slot of a standard FOUP on standard (E158 Option A) loadport in order to minimize the z axis travel distance covered by the EFEM robot. Proposal B suggests 1350mm in order to allow space under the process chamber that can accommodate height of vacuum pump assembly with higher pumping speed and capacity necessary for some applications.

Minimizing z axis travel distance of the EFEM Robot should be prioritized. (The approach taken by Proposal A is preferable)

Allowing maximum flexibility for Process Module design and use of space should be prioritized. (The approach taken by Proposal B is preferable)

Both should be balanced.

Other value should be considered. (Please describe the value and the reason below.)

Q9 [Transport Maximum Reach ] Which consideration, in your opinion, should be more prioritized to decide the standard Transport Maximum Reach?

Two values are suggested for the Transport Maximum Reach. Proposal A suggests that only the difference in wafer radius (75mm) should be added to the value for 300mm in E21.1 in order not to extend the transport module robot’s maximum reach capability too much. Proposal B suggests that not only the difference in wafer radius (75mm) should be considered but also clearance between the wafer and the chamber wall should be increased compared to the value for 300mm in E21.1 in order to realize process margin equivalent to 300mm chamber for gasflow/pumping related parameters.

Not to extend too much the transport module robot’s maximum reach capability should be prioritized. (The approach taken by Proposal A is preferable)

Consideration for process margin should be prioritized. (The approach taken by Proposal B is preferable)

Both should be balanced.

Other value should be considered. (Please describe the value and the reason below.)

The value should not be standardized

Not applicable to our product

This is a required question

Q9 (Other value should be considered.) Value:

This is a required question

Q9 (Other value should be considered.) Reason:

This is a required question

Q10 [Vertical Slot Opening and Vertical Motion Capability] Which proposal and its supporting logic, in your opinion, are addressing more important factors that should be considered to decide standard values for Vertical Slot Opening and Vertical Motion Capability?

Proposal A suggests 56mm as the Vertical Slot Opening. It is optimized to the value that allows safe passage of transport module robot arms while minimizing rf emission via gate valve, process chamber asymmetry and gas exchange through opening. Proposal B suggests 59mm as the Vertical Slot Opening applicable to module interface that does not accommodate vertical motion of the transport module robot. Proposal B requires greater vertical opening to allow use of both SCARA types and Frog-Leg type robot arms that are required to reach farther comparing to proposal A. Proposal B has the optional Extended Vertical Slot Opening in order to accommodate direct access by the transport module robot to any wafer placement location requiring vertical motion of end effector.

Proposal A

Proposal B

Neither is good, other value should be considered. (Please describe the value and the reason below.)

Those values should not be standardized

This is a required question

Q10 (Other value should be considered.) Value:

This is a required question

Q10 (Other value should be considered.) Reason:

This is a required question

Q11 [Wafer Transport Zone Maximum Width VS. Minimum Wafer Transfer Zone Width] Which proposal and its supporting logic, in your opinion, are addressing more important factors that should be considered to decide dimension of opening in width?

Proposal A suggests setting the Wafer Transport Zone Maximum Width to 496mm to allow 23mm clearance between wafer and the slot opening. Greater width is suggested in order to reduce risk of handling damage and allow space for wafer-gripping solutions. Proposal B suggests setting the Minimum Transfer Zone Width to 490mm to allow clearance between assumed Maximum Width of Wafer Transfer Plane Exclusion Zone (E22) and the slot opening. Smaller width is suggested to allow shorter facet length and reduce the transport module footprints per number of connectable process modules.

Proposal A

Proposal B

Neither is good, other value should be considered. (Please describe the value and the reason below.)

Q12 Which proposal better represents your position on those standardization items?

Proposal A does not include specification for the Transport Module End Effector Exclusion Volume. Proposal B suggests that recommendation should be given for the minimum dimensions of the Transport Module End Effector Exclusion Volume in order to ease interoperability issues between modules that have not been in

Proposal A (=No standardization)

Proposal B (=Development of a Guide)

Different type of Standard (Please specify desired type of Standard and/or scope of the Standard below).

This is a required question

Q12 (Different type of Standard) Desired type of Standard

This is a required question

Q12 (Different type of Standard) Scope of the Standard

This is a required question

VI. Standard Adoption

Q13 Is anyone in your company, or yourself, interested in participating in the international Process Module Physical Interface Task Force (IPPI TF) ?

Yes (Please provide name and the affiliation of the potential participant below.

No

This is a required question

Q13 (Yes) Name and the affiliation fo the potential participant

This is a required question

Q14 How likely is it for your company to adopt the Standard for process module physical interface, if such standard becomes available in time for 450mm transition?

Yes, my company will adopt it as the company standard specification.

Somewhat yes, My company will adopt it with possibly some exception.

No

This is a required question

VII. Others

If you have any comments or additional proposal on the topic, please describe.

This is a required question

Please click the submit button below.
Thank you for your cooperation.
(If you have any questions, please contact to Hirofumi Kanno (SEMI Japan) at hkanno@semi.org.)